Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christian Teacher in Ohio Battles Tyrannical Evolution Pushers
scottfactor.com ^ | 04/17/12 | Gina Miller

Posted on 04/17/2012 4:27:49 AM PDT by scottfactor

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 next last
To: betty boop
She asked where it came from, not what it is...

Indeed, tpanther, that was my very question, which exDemMom simply ignored.

I answered how DNA can form from the atoms that are already present. All it takes is presence of the atoms and an energy source, and the atoms will assemble into a large variety of molecules. The atoms already exist all over the earth, where they coalesced from space dust many billions of years ago. The energy comes from the sun and from radioactive decay on the earth.

According to physics, neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed (although, to a limited extent, matter can be converted to energy). So, as for where the atoms came from in the first place, some 14 billion years ago, I'm not concerning myself with that. The big bang? I dunno.

Let me put the question another way: How does an inorganic molecule become an "organic" one in the first place?

An inorganic molecule does not contain the correct atoms to be an organic molecule, and will never become organic.

By scientific definition, organic molecules contain carbon and hydrogen. It is really that simple.

It was once thought that organic compounds were strictly associated with living organisms, and that is how they got their name. However, there is no need for the presence of living things in order for organic molecules to form: the only requirements are the presence of carbon, hydrogen, other elements, and an energy source. Carbon forms a highly diverse set of molecules according to the laws of physics.

Examples of organic molecules include benzene, DNA, methane, ethanol, isopropanol, ether, aldehydes, ketones, etc. As you can see, many of these aren't derived from living organisms, and in fact, are quite poisonous.

So, how does an inorganic molecule become an organic one? This transition would involve a non-living entity becoming a living entity. How does this happen?

I gather that since biochemistry has no answer to this question, exDemMom, Ha Ha Thats Very Logical, and allmendream simply dismiss it "by sleight of hand" as it were, and refuse to engage it.

As I just explained, organic molecules are not intrinsically alive. And there is no way to turn an inorganic molecule into an organic one. Sure, you can use an inorganic molecule in a chemical reaction which produces an organic molecule--but you destroy the inorganic molecule in the process. And by simply doing a chemical reaction, you do not cause a thing to be alive.

Here is an example of a chemical reaction involving organic and inorganic components:

CH4 + Cl2 + energy --> CH3Cl + CH2Cl2 + CHCl3 + CCl4 + HCl

The Cl2, CCl4, and HCl are all inorganic molecules. The rest are organic.

But unfortunately, this means that biology can never be reached by physics — you can't get here from there. Instead of looking "forward" at what all the parts of an organism are converging upon — that is, the living organism — biology looks backward at that which the organism uses to express its functional wholeness, thus destroying the very thing — life — it is attempting to explain. This is odd, because it is not possible to even begin a discussion of life without an unstated intuition of the dynamic wholeness that is always manifested through it.

Biology is absolutely governed by physics. Within this universe, there is no escaping the invariant laws of physics. My own discipline, biochemistry, contains the subdiscipline of biophysics, which is devoted to studying the physics of biochemical processes. Not that I can escape studying the physics of the living processes that I study--but biophysicists go into far more depth than I do.

Now, as for what quality it is that imparts life to a conglomerate of chemical processes, I cannot answer that. In other discussions, where I attempt to describe prenatal humans, I always say that asking when human life begins is the wrong question, since the property of being alive is present in the egg and sperm before they fuse to become a zygote, as a result of their being formed by the mother and father. No one has ever seen something that is not alive become alive. Once life departs, it does not return.

The "organic molecule" DNA seems to have something to do with the expression of that "dynamic wholeness" in living organisms. But many if not most scientists today believe that "wholes" are merely the "sum of their parts," and nothing more.

DNA is not what makes us alive, although it is necessary for life to exist. It is only a molecule. It is not, itself, alive. If I want, I can make DNA through chemical reactions in the lab--but that is a rather tedious process, and a number of companies will gladly make any (small) DNA molecule that I specify, for a small fee. I can extract DNA from any kind of living organism. I can put DNA into many kinds of living organisms, and they will use it. There really is nothing all that special about it, in a chemical/physical sense.

In closing, it appears our biochemicist correspondents here believe that the electrical and chemical properties of atoms and molecules plus "chance" plus "evolution" gives us an explanation of life.

No, they do not give us an explanation of life. But they do give us a whole lot of information about the physical properties of living things.

But I believe that "chance remains a glorious cover-up for ignorance." I also note that strict determinism "is refuted by the very freedom whereby it is posited." As Godwin cites Barfield: "Chance, in fact = no hypothesis."

I don't know who Godwin or Barfield are, but that quote is just plain incorrect. If, instead of "chance", I use the term "probability", then it is an integral part of hypothesizing. It is necessary for interpretation of scientific data. Without accounting for "chance", there cannot be science.

151 posted on 04/28/2012 6:20:08 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I answered how DNA can form from the atoms that are already present. All it takes is presence of the atoms and an energy source, and the atoms will assemble into a large variety of molecules. The atoms already exist all over the earth, where they coalesced from space dust many billions of years ago. The energy comes from the sun and from radioactive decay on the earth.

yada, yada, yada....

And so the beat goes on.... interminably. Without respite, without light, without grace.

Did you understand a single thing I wrote in my last????

152 posted on 04/28/2012 9:20:03 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Did you understand a single thing I wrote in my last????

I did. And I addressed it all.

What I understand is that you are looking to science for answers that the scientific method cannot provide, and you blame (if that is the right word) science for not being able to answer those questions.

Science, of any discipline, is no more and no less than a description of the physical universe. No matter how you pose the questions, you aren't going to get any more than that out of science. I have the impression that you want science to affirm your faith--it cannot do that!

Yes, I am passionate about science; the physical world holds wonders beyond imagination. I am also quite aware of what science is, of the types of questions the scientific method can and cannot answer. Decades ago, I learned to accept the fact that science simply is not the tool to answer questions about faith. It is normal to have doubts, to wonder if, in reality, this physical world is the only existence we will ever know. But what I decided, long ago, is that even if we cannot prove in a tangible manner (in other words, by using the scientific method) that there is a basis for our faith--that it really is possible to trust in Jesus and to be assured of a place in Heaven--there is no reason to live as if we don't have that assurance. Science simply cannot answer metaphysical or philosophical questions, and we must accept that:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

I like to think that I know the difference.

153 posted on 04/28/2012 10:43:05 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; exDemMom
I gather that since biochemistry has no answer to this question, exDemMom, Ha Ha Thats Very Logical, and allmendream simply dismiss it "by sleight of hand" as it were, and refuse to engage it.

I can't speak to what the answer is as well as exDemMom has. (And I'm disappointed that you can only answer "yada yada yada" to a post she obviously spent a lot of time and thought on, and that you might be able to learn from if you were willing. Talk about "without grace"!) But I can offer my own reactions to your post (which, yes, I read and understood--it wasn't that complicated).

You quote Godwin (not a biologist or biochemist, I note, but a psychologist) as saying that "biochemists like to blur the distinction between life and matter." But he is begging the question: he's assuming without proof that "the" distincition between life and matter is clear and discernible. What if it's not? You may have heard of the ideas that proteins or RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecules. Is a self-replicating RNA molecule alive? Can you or Godwin explain why a rock is just matter, and a self-replicating RNA molecule is just matter, but single-cell, asexually reproducing algae is alive? If RNA is still used in living creatures, would it really be wrong to call self-replicating RNA "pre-life"?

As you can see, I don't dismiss the question. I'm comfortable saying, "I don't know." I also don't know why the sun's magnetic field is rebuilding asymmetrically this time. But that doesn't lead me to assert that because science can't answer the question right now, it must be because God has all of a sudden decided to reach in and tweak His creation.

154 posted on 04/28/2012 11:26:59 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
That is making a huge leap from what I said.

Really? I think it is you making the “huge leap.” It is beginning to occur to you that other important value judgments exist besides “scientific” value judgments. It’s just that these other values have become so woven into our culture that in your mind they have become axiomatic. Besides, in college “the subject never came up.”

The creation story is absolutely useless as a scientific methodology.

Already you have to walk back a flat assertion with a qualifier which did not exist in the conversation prior to my post #143. Now you elect to retrospectively make it specific to scientific methodology. Not credible (nor accurate).

It is also useless for cooking . . .

Tell that to an observant Jew.

architecture . . .

Witness the many edifices (both high and low) raised to the glory of the Creator.

civil engineering . . .

Well . . . you got me. I can’t think of a single thing impelling a civil engineer to ethical behavior. Perhaps a civil engineer will be willing to enlighten us.

musical composition and performance . . .

Sing praises to God, the Creator of Mankind and of the Universe. The concert repertoire is rife with references to the Creator.

Just because it is useless for any number of human activities doesn't mean it is useless for its apparent intended purpose, which is to give us insight about our standing with God.

Meaning what? That the Judeo-Christian God has no relevance in our day-to-day, ordinary existence, that is, to “any number of human activities”? I know of no Judeo-Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created Mankind and the Universe, and that He is relevant to all “human activities.” Do you? What, then, is our “standing with God”?

It is this issue (our “standing” with God) that drove Jefferson to observe that just as society is made for man, so man is made for society (emphasis mine). It is this issue that drove Franklin to observe that God governs in the affairs of men (“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”) And let us note that Franklin was careful say “governs” not “rules,” thereby acknowledging the existence of Mankind’s free will (another gift of the Creator).

When Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights (the most famous words since the words of Christ), he was not speaking only his thoughts, but the thoughts of a whole people. God, the creator of Natural Law; God the giver of law to Man; the equality of all Men the gift of The Creator; unalienable rights the gift of The Creator. The Founding Fathers make it undeniably clear that the Creationist philosophy of Judeo-Christianity is central to their public and private perspectives regarding liberty. Look up the etymology of the word “Creator” (with a capital “C”), and its development following the printing of the KJV of the Holy Bible. It is said that that the KJV changed a nation, a language, and a culture.

To rip out Creationism from Judeo-Christianity is to rip out the heart of the religion and leave but a husk. If God is not the creator of Mankind and of the Universe, then why is He worshiped by over two billion followers? And, why do one and a half billion more people try to piggyback their faith on the early events precipitated by the Judeo-Christian Creator?

We do not know how the Tuskegee experiment would have played out in a society with different ethics than ours.

Irrelevant. The experiment “played out” in this society . . . with the ethics appearing retrospectively to the preponderance of the experiment. We can guess how the Tuskegee Experiment might have “played out” in the Japanese society you mention (the Japanese society before 1946) or in the Nazi culture of Dr Mengele . . . very much like it was playing out here until Science learned late in the game that a society with a Judeo-Christian Tradition has ethics.

Plenty of scientific research can be performed without ever considering morality.

Are you proposing, as did one staunch “defender” of Science (now self-exiled to the icy confines of Darwin Central), that scientific research has no point? So desperate was he to establish that no cultural values were tied to Science. Is science research really done purely for its own sake, divorced from any human values?

I do not use the terms interchangeably” (Creationism & Christianity)

As you properly should not. Creationism is not a religion . . . in the context we are discussing here, it is the most fundamental tenet of the Judeo-Christian religion – that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator of Mankind and the Universe. Creationism does not inform the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is the Judeo-Christian religion that informs Creationism.

All of my comments specifically address the idea that the creation story in Genesis is literal.

Literal, like a science textbook? Not hardly. Yet in any lesser vein must we accept the Biblical creation story as “existentialist nonsense” or, “thought meandering”? The some sixty-six odd books of the KJV translation all existed before anyone ever heard of a science textbook. As did the original transcripts from which the KJV was drawn, as well as the apocrypha, which was the task of one whole “company” of KJV translators, as well as the additional books of the RC bible. All are meant to convey the meaning of God’s Word and are to be interpreted literally, metaphorically, allegorically, historically, doctrinally and literarily. How are we to receive “In the beginning” if not literally?

I do not appreciate the fact that scientists are routinely called liars, accused of fabricating data, accused of following some oddball "Darwinism" religion . . .

When have I done those things?

. . . and all of the other nasty things literal young-earth creationists (YECs) say about us.

If your quarrel is with the YECs (or some part of them), why do you cast aspersions on a whole religion rather than take up your dispute specifically with YECs?

Some time ago I described to you a group of scientists (or a group who represent themselves as scientists or spokesmen for scientists) who cited Science, specifically evolution, as being sufficient cause to deny the existence of God. You denied any knowledge of such a group, repudiated any connection with them, and rejected any responsibility for their behavior. Yet, somehow you expect me to now accept ownership of the behavior of a group with whom I enjoy no association other than a common religion.

Why?

155 posted on 05/01/2012 3:39:27 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
Really? I think it is you making the “huge leap.” It is beginning to occur to you that other important value judgments exist besides “scientific” value judgments. It’s just that these other values have become so woven into our culture that in your mind they have become axiomatic. Besides, in college “the subject never came up.”

You're still making a big leap to conclusions. Please point out the post, in this or any other thread, where I said, overtly or implicitly, that science is a system of values or morality. I have never said that. I have, very clearly and on several occasions, stated that the practitioner of science brings their values to the profession, not the other way around. Perhaps you have read creationist websites where those selling literal creationism flat-out say that science is a religion, and you are projecting that belief on me?

Already you have to walk back a flat assertion with a qualifier which did not exist in the conversation prior to my post #143. Now you elect to retrospectively make it specific to scientific methodology. Not credible (nor accurate).

I used exactly the same qualifier in post #137; I have "walked nothing back." Even in allmendream's posts, where he didn't put "scientific" and "useless" in the same sentence about creationism, it was clear by the context that he was referring to the utility of creationism to guide scientific inquiry.

Tell that to an observant Jew.

Um... okay. So if I decide to cook a Passover dinner for one of my orthodox Jewish friends, I'll just pull out the Bible instead of Googling Passover recipes. Right.

Witness the many edifices (both high and low) raised to the glory of the Creator.

Sing praises to God, the Creator of Mankind and of the Universe. The concert repertoire is rife with references to the Creator.

Witness the number of edifices used by Planned Parenthood. Listen to the number of songs glorifying atheism, socialism, or foul treatment of women. The evidence indicates that morality is brought to, not imparted by, the profession. I cannot think of a single profession where that is not true.

Meaning what? That the Judeo-Christian God has no relevance in our day-to-day, ordinary existence, that is, to “any number of human activities”? ...

You're taking things way beyond the scope of what I said. I thought I made it clear previously that I do not care to discuss philosophy, and you dove head-first into it here. That said, I can point out that there are large numbers of people who have not accepted the relevance of a Judeo-Christian God--there are many Buddhists, Zoroastrians, pagans, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc., who see a completely different faith-based relevance to their daily lives. What I meant by "our standing with God" is our personal understanding of our relationship with God.

Irrelevant. The experiment “played out” in this society . . . with the ethics appearing retrospectively to the preponderance of the experiment. We can guess how the Tuskegee Experiment might have “played out” in the Japanese society you mention (the Japanese society before 1946) or in the Nazi culture of Dr Mengele . . . very much like it was playing out here until Science learned late in the game that a society with a Judeo-Christian Tradition has ethics.

How much time have you spent actually discussing the Tuskegee experiment, and its relevance to the evolving field of ethics in medical research? Are you aware that everyone involved in the Tuskegee experiment believed in the rightness of what they were doing, that they were doing something good for the research subjects? The big moral lapse that occurred during the Tuskegee experiment was that when a treatment for syphilis was developed, the treatment was not offered to the research subjects, and the experiment continued. Had no treatment for syphilis been invented, and the experiment continued, there may not have been an outcry at all. Although there was the matter of all the subjects being poor black men... which might have raised outrage, but for a different reason.

aAre you proposing, as did one staunch “defender” of Science (now self-exiled to the icy confines of Darwin Central), that scientific research has no point? So desperate was he to establish that no cultural values were tied to Science. Is science research really done purely for its own sake, divorced from any human values?

So what if a main motivation for doing research is for the sake of feeding one's curiosity? You can find any number of professionals who chose their profession because of a personal passion. Being personally driven to do a particular kind of work does not make that work pointless. Would you also say that the work of our many men and women in uniform has no point as well, because many of them joined the military purely for the sake of being in the military?

If your quarrel is with the YECs (or some part of them), why do you cast aspersions on a whole religion rather than take up your dispute specifically with YECs?

Throughout the course of these discussions, I've made an effort to be very clear about the fact that I am criticizing YECs, and not Christians in general. If I were trying to disparage all of Christianity, I would never have stated that there is no reason to believe that being a scientist and being a Christian are incompatible.

156 posted on 05/02/2012 4:00:26 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; allmendream; Alamo-Girl
Science, of any discipline, is no more and no less than a description of the physical universe. No matter how you pose the questions, you aren't going to get any more than that out of science. I have the impression that you want science to affirm your faith — it cannot do that!

Dear exDemMom, I have no problem with the idea that science "is no more and no less than a description of the physical universe." I do have a problem with the idea that the entire universe reduces to the physical, or the material; that there is nothing more to it than that. Even an atheist should know better. (If he didn't, how could he explain himself?)

If I needed science to affirm my faith, then my faith wouldn't be "faith."

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. — Hebrews 11:1

Setting religion aside here, I believe the universe has a metaphysical extension. I do understand that science does not and cannot address this aspect of the universe. And that's okay. We have philosophy — and theology — to do that.

To me, whose background is in philosophy, history, and culture, the two most foundational questions one can ask were originally posed by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a great German mathematician and philosopher: (1) Why are things the way they are, and not some other way? and (2) Why is there anything at all, why not nothing? Obviously, these are not scientific questions. But this doesn't mean they do not refer to something real; that they are not worth asking. They are, of course, metaphysical questions, the answers to which seem ever elusive.

As a working scientist, such questions are, of course, irrelevant to what you do. But in a certain sense, these open-ended questions refer to the very context in which everything in the universe happens, including the conduct of science.

I don't mind that science must confine itself to the phenomenal. What alarms me is the seeming hostility of some scientists towards all things nonphenomenal. I sense this in the attitude of Nobel Laureate molecular biologist Jacques Monod, for example, who evidently believed that the universe is essentially matter + "pure, blind chance."

Or the seeming hostility of evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin regarding nonphenomenal aspects of reality.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

And he seems to know the downside of this sort of thing:

… When faced with questions that they really don’t know how to answer — like “How does a single cell turn into a mouse?” or “How did the structure and activity of Beethoven’s brain result in Opus 131?” — the only thing that natural scientists know how to do is turn them into other questions that they do know how to answer. That is, scientists do what they already know how to do.

Forgive me, but this looks like rigging the game to me.

In effect, this last quote seems to be an admission that life and consciousness cannot be directly addressed by science at all. Which may very well be true. After all, both are "intangibles," non-observables.

And yet we have biologists who insist that consciousness (mind) is "merely" an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. IOW, they are telling a "just-so story": they don't have a clue what consciousness is (or life for that matter), so they simply reduce it to emanations of brain activity. Jeepers, that doesn't strike me as even a good guess.... I doubt it is a testable one.

My concern here is the impact this sort of thing has on the culture in which we live. Science enjoys such prestige nowadays, that most of the public simply, uncritically accepts what scientists say as "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

When I asked if you understood "a single thing I wrote in my last," it was with respect to the issues of nonphenomenal reality I was trying to raise. I apologize for my rudeness to you, ExDemMom. It was both uncalled for (your essay/post at #151 was wonderfully informative) and unhelpful.

You said you didn't know who Owen Barfield was. He was a highly-influential British philosopher whose main work was devoted to the evolution of consciousness, "exploring its development through the history of language" as his Estate's website puts it. His book, Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry

...is about the world as we see it and the world as it is; it is about God, human nature, and consciousness. The best known of numerous books by the British sage whom C.S. Lewis called the "wisest and best of my unofficial teachers," it draws on sources from mythology, philosophy, history, literature, theology, and science to chronicle the evolution of human thought from Moses and Aristotle to Galileo and Keats. Barfield urges his readers to do away with the assumption that the relationship between people and their environment is static. He dares us to end our exploitation of the natural world and to acknowledge, even revel in, our participation in the diurnal creative process.

— as the book description goes.

He is dealing with a much "larger universe" (so to speak) than that accessible by means of the scientific method.

Robert Godwin is a clinical and forensic psychologist and philosopher.

Jeepers, I hope you don't disparage these outstanding thinkers simply because they're "philosophers!"

Thank you so much, ExDemMom, for your excellent essay/posts!

157 posted on 05/02/2012 10:06:09 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
My concern here is the impact this sort of thing has on the culture in which we live. Science enjoys such prestige nowadays, that most of the public simply, uncritically accepts what scientists say as "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

That is my concern also, dearest sister in Christ!

Thank you so much for your wonderful essay-post!

158 posted on 05/02/2012 10:43:17 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop
It is because science is of demonstrated usefulness with valuable applicability that science has deserved prestige.

Only those who don't understand science thinks it represents or purports to represent “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Science presents useful models that helps to explain and predict the natural world. The model need not be “true” in order to be of use.

Meanwhile creationism doesn't enjoy the same prestige among the general public or among those hiring people to make valuable and useful predictions or determinations - because it is of no use.

No wonder you are concerned!!!!

159 posted on 05/02/2012 11:28:08 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I guess I still don't see what your beef with Darwinian evolution is, then.

I can understand being impatient with scientists who insist that "the entire universe reduces to the physical, or the material," or that we know what we don't know. As a subscriber to some alternative health practices, I'm well aware that a lot of people refuse to accept anything they don't understand. I remember sitting at a dinner party next to a doctor who was scoffing at the idea that someone's mood could affect their health outcome. A couple of years later, headline in the paper: "Mood affects health outcome, doctors say." (Anecdote slightly edited, of course.)

But while individual scientists, like the ones you quote, might make that kind of argument, "science" doesn't, nor does "evolution." I don't think it's a bad thing to investigate whether consciousness is an epiphenomenon or emergent property of a physical brain. But the whole single-cell creatures to multicell creatures, dinosaurs to birds, proto-humans to humans edifice doesn't depend on that answer.

Robert Godwin is a clinical and forensic psychologist and philosopher. Jeepers, I hope you don't disparage these outstanding thinkers simply because they're "philosophers!"

The only reason I mentioned his background is that he's insisting on a firm dividing line between life and matter and disparaging biochemists who see a fuzzier division. I couldn't help but wonder whether if he were a biochemist himself, he might have a deeper understanding of the question. I'd wonder the same thing about a biochemist disparaging a psychologist's statement about human behavior.

160 posted on 05/02/2012 1:36:21 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; Alamo-Girl; exDemMom; allmendream
I guess I still don't see what your beef with Darwinian evolution is, then.

It's very simple: As an historical "science," it calls for things that are not directly testable. It calls for things that not only have never been directly observed, but which cannot be directly observed in principle.

[Of course, I am here speaking of the macroevolution component of the doctrine.]

In that very sense, it is no different than the offerings of any religious sect.

161 posted on 05/02/2012 1:56:56 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
What you call "creationism" isn't even science.

So, why do you impose scientific criteria on it?

162 posted on 05/02/2012 2:05:43 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Evolution is directly testable and it has been directly observed.

And even if you are still misspeaking after all these years and calling speciation “evolution” - that too has been observed and is absolutely testable and predictable.

One need not see a star form from beginning to end to utilize the theory that stars form through gravity and nuclear fusion and make testable predictions based upon it.

One need not see the Grand Canyon form to know that erosion is both necessary and sufficient to explain its formation and make testable predictions based upon it.

One need not see the Himalayas rise up into mountains to know and understand the forces causing it and make testable predictions based upon it.

And it IS different than the offering of a religion in that it is testable, useful, and explanatory and based upon known physical means rather than miraculous presupposition that is absolutely USELESS.

163 posted on 05/02/2012 2:16:38 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
And I would agree. I think God created a universe that is self consistent and progresses according to the natural laws that God designed. Science only works when we make that assumption - that things are working according to natural laws.

So, you do believe in miracles. (Sorry I am coming in so late on the thread.....I'll try to read and catch up.)

164 posted on 05/02/2012 2:29:49 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Yes, I believe, for example, that when God parted the Red Sea- HE did so miraculously.

Do you think the stars forming out of gas clouds out in the galaxy are created by God? Are they any less created by God that our own Sun? Was our Sun created miraculously? If so such a formulation is useless - while supposing that it formed through natural forces is useful.

The Bible says I was created “from dust” and “to dust” I will return. But I also know that I was created through cellular processes involving DNA.

Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”?

165 posted on 05/02/2012 2:38:34 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Evolution is directly testable and it has been directly observed.

Well then, you must be older than Methusaleh to have "observed" this (i.e., macroevolution) directly.

Congratulations on your late old age! This would make you — what? — about 4.7 billion years old???

May you live forever!

166 posted on 05/02/2012 2:45:01 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Very shallow.

Evolution is a change in the DNA of a population.

It is directly testable and has been observed directly. In fact it is inevitable that DNA will change. Nothing is going to stop it.

Sorry that after all this time you still don't really know what evolution is or even what DNA is and how it does what it does.

Evolution is not speciation. And speciation has been observed and the consequences of speciation have been directly observed.

How do you even define macro-evolution?

Would the difference between a mouse and a rat be a “micro” change or a “macro” change?

167 posted on 05/02/2012 2:58:40 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Hi Betty. I have not been on FR for a while. There are also numerous studies regarding the genus Paramecium studying hyperosmolarity introduced in a medium and the paramecium tried to use its mobility, away from the hyperosmolar fluid. Of course eventually the solute became isotonic and killed the creature. The same response studies have been done with thermal differentials, pH differentials. These studies were done with Amoeba. I do not know if flagellated bacteria were likewise studied, but I feel sure they were. Sentience is the operative word...self awareness.

There is a very informative book entitled "The Metabolic Basis of Inherited Disease", by Stanbury,Wynngaarden, and Fredrickson. The book covers the entire spectrum of metabolic disease from diseases primarily manifested as disorders of carbohydrate metabolism to disorders of amino acid metabolism, to lipid metabolism, steriod metabolism, purine and pyrimidine metabolism, and on and on and on. One disease called Lesch-Nyhan syndrome is the manifestation of a genetic abberation of the complete lack of an enzyme of purine metabolism, hypoxanthine-guanine Phosphoribosyl-transferase. It results in the excess production of uric acid, and results in neurologic features, including self-mutilation, choreatheosis, spaciticityd, and mental retardation. This enzyme defect is due to a single genetic mutation. It is analogous to the mutation of the genetic 'defect' of the oft-dredged 'antibiotic' resistance mutation. Now there is no doubt that nosocomial infections are real. Pseudomonus aerougenosis and Staph come to mind. I have had to contend with those two more than I care to think about. But the point is these unfortunant people afflicted with Leysh-Nyan are people and Pseudomons is Pseudomonas. The same might be said of people who genetically are afflicted with Albinism, Juvenile Onset Diabetes (Type I), Phenylketonuria, Alcaptonuria, Hyperinsulinemia, Fabry's disease, Wilson's disease, and hundreds others....they are all conditions, the result of mutiation, and they are all Homo sapien

I think we need to step back to define life, truth, science, and another word which keeps being played like a palmed card, useless.

168 posted on 05/02/2012 3:07:47 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
DNA is an organic molecule. A system containing the elements that make up organic molecules (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen), a few other elements, and energy, spontaneously produces a large variety of organic molecules according to physical law. DNA consists of four letters, A, T, C, G. Those four letters are transcribed into RNA through physical enzymatic processes. The letters in RNA are A, U, C, G. Amino acids of proteins are coded by three letter words. AUG, for example, codes for methionine. The RNA letter string feeds through a ribosome, which attaches amino acids together in the order that their corresponding words appear in the RNA. The process is completely mechanical and explainable.

Please explain how a solute containing Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and hydrogen will spontaneously large quantities of organic molecules according to physical laws. Since all of science of cosmogony indisputably proves the universe began, and came to be from nothing, please tell us, in accordance to physical laws how hyrogen, oxygen, and carbon came to be. I would also ask if you would clarify for us if the early earth contained O2. If O2 is produced for the most part by photosynthesis how did O2 come to develope 20% of the earths atmosphere. Also regarding the early earth, please explain how O2 molecules could evade the profound effects of ultraviolet radiation on those O2 molecules.

So many questions. Are you really meaning to say that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) consists of 4 letters.. A,T,C, and G. Or did you mean those letters represent nucleotides. And if so, please tell us how chemical nucleotides convey this 'tangible information'. Would it be more accurate to express this 'tangible information' as the physical expression of information contained in the genetic code. If you agree with that expression, then how did chemicals 'tell' messenger RNA to move to ribosomes and produce a protein. Information -> Nucleic acid -> mRNA ->ribosome ->expression of information. Now, what is the physical makeup of information.

169 posted on 05/02/2012 3:36:42 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter; betty boop

Are either of you aware that an amoeba has a genome up to one hundred times larger than a human being?

Typical moving of the goal post. I ask about sentience in bacteria and the behavior of a highly complex Eukaryote with a genome a hundred times larger than our own and many thousands of times larger than a bacteria is brought out as an example of supposed sentience.

One need not have sentience to display complex behavior based upon molecular interactions.

But it might help to understand those interactions if you know what DNA is and what it does.

It is easy to assume that everything is magical when you don’t have any idea how things actually work.


170 posted on 05/02/2012 3:39:07 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
yada, yada, yada....

Look the word up in the dictionary. It makes your statement even more humorous. It also reminds me of Elaine Benis.

171 posted on 05/02/2012 3:44:13 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

As you know biologists (atheist, physicalists, darwinists) have held to their dogma of strong physicalism and MUST deny epiphenomenalism. Once they go to epiphenominalism they have crossed the breach to the metaphysical. Yet to fail to embrace, at least, epiphenomenalism, is to refuse to acknowledge their own consciousness, logic, reason and rational thought. ( and much, much more). To be on the horns of that delima must be the metaphysical equivalent of an ivory enema (if you have ever ridden bulls, you know the joke).


172 posted on 05/02/2012 3:54:54 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
either of you aware that an amoeba has a genome up to one hundred times larger than a human being? Typical moving of the goal post. I ask about sentience in bacteria and the behavior of a highly complex Eukaryote with a genome a hundred times larger than our own and many thousands of times larger than a bacteria is brought out as an example of supposed sentience.

As I look at your 3 sentences it seems the 1st sentence should, at least, come after sentence number 2 and 3....as regards to moving the goal posts.

Does DNA confer sentience and consciousness? No I am not aware of the comparative genomes of those two species.

173 posted on 05/02/2012 4:03:06 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
One need not have sentience to display complex behavior based upon molecular interactions.

Good! Progress! You differentiate sentience from behavior based upon molecular interactions. So....is sentience genetically determined?

As life evolved, as you determine, did it evolve to select for behavior which created an adaptive survival benefit? YOu will say yes. So...are adaptive responses always selected for truth? I cannot answer for you. Please answer. You will probably say NO. Is truth always an adaptive benefit? You will say No, I think.

Go ahead and answer....I do not want to steal your thunder.

174 posted on 05/02/2012 4:21:48 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

The relationships in science/engineering and mathematics has allowed mankind to develop modernize and even define the world/universe we live in. I see no such events from the theory of evolution although it is interesting that humans and other creatures separately do change over time..


175 posted on 05/02/2012 4:22:10 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; allmendream
I used exactly the same qualifier in post #137; I have "walked nothing back."

And in my post #143, I pointed out that it was in your post #137 that your qualifier signaled a “walking back” of a prior categorical assertion.

Even in allmendream's posts, where he didn't put "scientific" and "useless" in the same sentence about creationism, it was clear by the context that he was referring to the utility of creationism to guide scientific inquiry.

Not a credible statement; amd’s assertion is categorical: “creationism is useless.” Period. No qualifiers.

So if I decide to cook a Passover dinner for one of my orthodox Jewish friends, I'll just pull out the Bible instead of Googling Passover recipes. Right.

Don’t be insulting. The reason you would Google “Passover recipes” is because of your guests’ religious beliefs. Now you are proposing that a Torah (or a bible) must be read as though it were a recipe book?

Witness the number of edifices used by Planned Parenthood.

Yeah, and witness the number that are used by religions. Both Judeo-Christian and others. Likewise the presence of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the concert repertoire. Your narrative seems to prove in your mind that the presence of other influences obviates the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is not surprising. In our society (Western Civilization), the prevailing attitude seems to be that wherever any other model exists, the Judeo-Christian Tradition must vacate.

Your original synopsis seemed to be that, besides scientific methodology, Creationism is useless for “cooking,” for “architecture,” for “musical composition.” I provided counter examples. You didn’t like them, suggesting the presence of other influences somehow negated the Judeo-Christian tradition. And, oh yeah, with “civil engineering” I had to confess a lack of an adequate rejoinder.

You're taking things way beyond the scope of what I said.

The “Who, Me?” defense. I asked for clarification. What I receive is “Who? Me?”

I thought I made it clear previously that I do not care to discuss philosophy

Off again. “Who? Me?” You don’t care to discuss philosophy except when you care to discuss philosophy. Don’t start a brawl and then announce you’re leaving the party. If you don’t care to discuss philosophy . . . don’t discuss philosophy.

That said, I can point out that there are large numbers of people who have not accepted the relevance of a Judeo-Christian God

On again. Which proves what? Are we back to the presence of any other entity vacates the Judeo-Christian?

What I meant by "our standing with God" is our personal understanding of our relationship with God.

It’s personal . . . and not to be discussed?

How much time have you spent actually discussing the Tuskegee experiment, and its relevance to the evolving field of ethics in medical research?

So, there is ethics in Science? Or is that only when it’s convenient for there to be ethics in Science?

The big moral lapse that occurred during the Tuskegee experiment was that when a treatment for syphilis was developed, the treatment was not offered to the research subjects, and the experiment continued.

The “evolving” ethics just weren’t advanced enough? A fuller discussion of the “lapse” somehow makes it all OK? The fact that a cure was developed well before the experiment’s conclusion notwithstanding, another “big moral lapse” that resided in the Tuskegee Experiment, at its inception, was the knowledge of the intense suffering the subjects (and their families) would endure in the disease’s advanced stages.

But . . . you know . . . eggs – omelette.

So what if a main motivation for doing research is for the sake of feeding one's curiosity?

Which obviates . . . what?

Being personally driven to do a particular kind of work does not make that work pointless.

So you don’t endorse those who look to divorce Science from cultural values (as do some)?

I've made an effort to be very clear about the fact that I am criticizing YECs, and not Christians in general.

By “Christians in general” do you include the Creationist beliefs shared by all Judeo-Christians? I have to hand it to you. You’ve maintained plausible deniability better than do most.

Now . . . put on your best wounded “Who, Me?”

176 posted on 05/02/2012 5:15:16 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Yes, I believe, for example, that when God parted the Red Sea- HE did so miraculously. Do you think the stars forming out of gas clouds out in the galaxy are created by God? Are they any less created by God that our own Sun? Was our Sun created miraculously? If so such a formulation is useless - while supposing that it formed through natural forces is useful. The Bible says I was created “from dust” and “to dust” I will return. But I also know that I was created through cellular processes involving DNA. Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”?

So..you believe in miracles.

If one regresses the origin of the universe, yes the origin of the sun was supernatural.

I am reminded of a story told by J.P.Moreland. He said upon trying to answer a question he had asked what is she doing? She could have answered, "I am applying heat to a kettle of water and the energy is transferred through the copper bottom of a kettle, transferred to the water, the water molecules begin to move faster and faster until the surface tension of the water is broken and water molecules escape as gas into the atmosphere". OR, she could have just said, "I am heating water to make tea,...do you want some." Both answers, in context, are accurate.

Have you read "Signature In The Cell"? I think you would like it. I would enjoy getting your take on it.

177 posted on 05/02/2012 5:42:34 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; betty boop; metmom; YHAOS
Evolution is directly testable and it has been directly observed.

As long as you have on rose colored glasses, make up rules for others that you can't possibly follow yourself. In short if you're a liberal you can most certainly observe it. ;)

178 posted on 05/02/2012 5:44:42 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter; Alamo-Girl; exDemMom; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Oxford English dictionary:

Yada (or yadda): "used to indicate that further details are predictable or contextually evident from what has preceded."

As to Elaine Benes: She is "a fictional character on the American television sitcom Seinfeld (1989–1998), played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus."

I have never watched that show — except once, and found it so pointless and tiresome that I never returned.

Great catches, Texas Songwriter. Thank you oh so very much!

179 posted on 05/02/2012 5:50:31 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
If evolution was “unobserved” then last years flu vaccination should be just as good as this years. In fact, there would be no need to update flu vaccinations at all.

Are you saying that all virus particles are genetically altered to make a vaccine? It seems like that is what you are saying. Since you bring it up I am sure you are aware of attenuating the viral particles with a variety off attenuants...formaldehyde, certain mercury products, heat, etc. Are you genetically engineering all of these vaccines? Some are treated with certain chemical aduvants to augment the immune response in the person receiving the vaccine.

Is this how you support the claim of observing evolution? You are trying to pull a fast one on these readers. That is not fair. There are those who know of this type of sophistry.

180 posted on 05/02/2012 5:55:13 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
“special” creationism formed as a movement in opposition to a scientific theory - and modern creationists are in opposition to the theories of plate, geology, astronomy, physics, archeology, paleontology and any number of OTHER scientific disciplines. So yes Virginia - Creationists are anti-science. The only type of science they like is “Creation Science” which is not science at all as its methodology is in direct opposition to the scientific method.

So when Darwin offered his hypothesis in opposition to that days convention he was demonstrating his opposition to science? When Einstein proffered the general theory of relativity he was unscientific and demonstrating his opposition to that days convention. When Eddington took measurements and proved Einsteins theory to be correct he was going against convention? When Hubble confirmed the origin of the universe he violated convention and thus was unscientific? When Freidman and Lamatreyia again proved origin and threw in with Einstein they were unconventional and thus unscientific? When Hoyl agreed to dispose of the steady-state theory and threw in with Einstein, he was violating his duty to 'science'?

I guess my point is, these men seemed committed to truth, and the search for the truth, not a presuppositional committment to their comfort zone. As you know, Einstein's committment was so strong that he conjoured a cosmological constant to actually make void his earth-shattering theory...and finally, to Hubble, at the telescope at Mt.Wilson, just outside of LA, as Einstein himself looked at Hubbles findings, he finally admitted that his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life.

Some of us ask questions....some criticize those questions.

181 posted on 05/02/2012 6:11:15 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
“special” creationism formed as a movement in opposition to a scientific theory - and modern creationists are in opposition to the theories of plate, geology, astronomy, physics, archeology, paleontology and any number of OTHER scientific disciplines. So yes Virginia - Creationists are anti-science. The only type of science they like is “Creation Science” which is not science at all as its methodology is in direct opposition to the scientific method.

So when Darwin offered his hypothesis in opposition to that days convention he was demonstrating his opposition to science? When Einstein proffered the general theory of relativity he was unscientific and demonstrating his opposition to that days convention. When Eddington took measurements and proved Einsteins theory to be correct he was going against convention? When Hubble confirmed the origin of the universe he violated convention and thus was unscientific? When Freidman and Lamatreyia again proved origin and threw in with Einstein they were unconventional and thus unscientific? When Hoyl agreed to dispose of the steady-state theory and threw in with Einstein, he was violating his duty to 'science'?

I guess my point is, these men seemed committed to truth, and the search for the truth, not a presuppositional committment to their comfort zone. As you know, Einstein's committment was so strong that he conjoured a cosmological constant to actually make void his earth-shattering theory...and finally, to Hubble, at the telescope at Mt.Wilson, just outside of LA, as Einstein himself looked at Hubbles findings, he finally admitted that his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life.

Some of us ask questions....some criticize those questions.

182 posted on 05/02/2012 6:11:41 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Actually “abiogenesis” is the theory of how life came into being.

....I'll come back to this one.

183 posted on 05/02/2012 6:15:10 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Actually “abiogenesis” is the theory of how life came into being.

....I'll come back to this one.

184 posted on 05/02/2012 6:16:57 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Abiogenesis = a hypothesis about how life could come about through physical means.

This is not what you just said.

185 posted on 05/02/2012 6:19:54 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
To be on the horns of that delima must be the metaphysical equivalent of an ivory enema (if you have ever ridden bulls, you know the joke).

I don't have to be a bull rider to grasp how unpleasant it must be to be on the wrong end of an "ivory enema."

Thank you ever so much, dear Texas Songwriter, for your trenchent (and hilarious) observations!

186 posted on 05/02/2012 6:54:19 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The concept of separation of Church and State is one that predates Communism - and it was one of our foundational principles as outlined by Madison and Jefferson and its recognition is included within the very first right in the bill of rights.

Wow! You would agree that it is important to know the truth about this important issue. As you know the phrase "separation of church and state" is not enshrined in the Establishment clause. Likewise the word "church" nor the word "state" are contained therein. The publics' often misunderstanding of the first amendment has been molded by the Court's often-repeated usage of the phrase. The fact that all of the original 13 States which were signatories to the Constitution had state constitutions which prescribed Bible reading, Old and New Testaments, and were obliged to take an oath, for example in Delaware, Article 22 says, "Every member who shall be chosen a member to either House or appointed to any office or place of trust shall make and subscribe to the following declartion, to wit: "I ______do profess faith in God the FAther, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, and in the HOly Ghost, one God blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scripture of the Old and New Testatment to be give by divine inspiration." A similar statement was given in each state. This was extant political reality in the day of the writing of our Constitution and was likewise in each state. These men were sent to the Constitutional Convention.

A strong proof that the First Amendment was never intended to separate Christianity from public affairs came in the form of legislation approved by the same Congress which created the First Amendment That legislation, originally entitledl "An Ordinance for the Government of teh Territory of the United States, Northwest of the River Ohio" and later shortened to the "Northwest Ordinance" provided the procedure and requirements whereby territories could attin statehood in the newly United States. After all, there were thousands of Americans in the wilderness and the western territories facross the Ohio River. Article III of this Ordinance said, ""Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind_____________________shall forevermore be encouraged".

In the United States, the origin of the phrase, "Separation of Church and State" was written by Jefferson in response to a concern put to Jefferson from the Danbury Baptist church, from Danbury, Conneticutt. On Jan.1, 1802 Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists and said, "I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. This phrase was not recorded in the Constitutional Convention in any of the recordings.

As one Freeper told you, Article 52 of the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics says: "The churh in the USSR is separated from the state, and the school from the church."

187 posted on 05/02/2012 7:04:34 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; allmendream
It's very simple: As an historical "science," it calls for things that are not directly testable. It calls for things that not only have never been directly observed, but which cannot be directly observed in principle.

As is the case with most historical sciences. Do you have the same problem with all of them? Do you have an issue with the idea that South America and Africa were once joined, or that the Himalayas are the result of India crashing into Asia? We've measured the movement of continental plates (I suppose you could call that microtectonics) but never observed the creation of a continent (macrotectonics) (and speaking as someone living in California, I hope we never do).

How about the formation of the moon? We're not going to see that again either, God willing. Do you complain when people talk about the moon being formed from part of the Earth that got knocked off 4+ billion years ago?

If you're consistently refuse to believe in things we can't directly test or observe, that's one thing. But if you're singling out evolution with a criticism that can apply to a lot of other theories--well, I just want to point out the inconsistency.

[Of course, I am here speaking of the macroevolution component of the doctrine.]

And here, I think you're rigging the game. Can you define where microevolution becomes macroevolution? I don't think you can--I think you just "know it when you see it." I mentioned a while back a population of lizards that developed larger heads and a whole new gut structure to accommodate a changed diet in a new environment, and asked if that was macro enough. I expect--maybe I'm wrong--that you'll say "they're still lizards." Well, yes, and you'll be able to say that no matter how much they change because you know they started as lizards--that's what I mean by rigging the game. (You know they're not going to turn into cats or birds, right?) Each new generation will look like and be able to interbreed with their parents, so you'll be able to say "they're still lizards" even if they end up feathered and flying.

You also know tigers and lions can reproduce, right? What's your explanation for that--are they really just microevolutionary variations of the same animal? What animal is that?

In that very sense, it is no different than the offerings of any religious sect.

In the sense that both deal with things most people haven't seen, yes. But that's a trivial sense. In more meaningful senses, such as whether you can make predictions based on it (as allmendream keeps pointing out), they are nothing alike.

188 posted on 05/02/2012 8:44:29 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

And so the beat goes on.... interminably. Without respite, without light, without grace.

I know...right???...it’s as if not seeing the forest for the trees isn’t enough, it’s as if there’s a back-breaking effort to only allow ones-self to see the trees and nothing else. Ever.

Interestingly DNA, benzene, ketones all the organic molecules in a human being can be stacked onto a platform, every single solitary atom of a person accounted for and carefully placed together just exactly and perfectly so, and yet only some intelligent designed energy or force with purpose is going to make it all breathe, dream walk, talk, love.. have a soul.

It can’t happen just because we want it to be so.


189 posted on 05/02/2012 9:14:19 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Thanks for the "make up rules for others that you can't possibly follow yourself" beep ( ^8 }
190 posted on 05/03/2012 10:51:03 AM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I don't mind that science must confine itself to the phenomenal. What alarms me is the seeming hostility of some scientists towards all things nonphenomenal. I sense this in the attitude of Nobel Laureate molecular biologist Jacques Monod, for example, who evidently believed that the universe is essentially matter + "pure, blind chance."

I don't think I've ever witnessed hostility towards the "nonphenomenal", just indifference. The kind of person who tends to be drawn to science is very focused on and fascinated with the physical world. I remember, as a small child, watching the (then new) show Star Trek and adoring Mr. Spock; I wanted to grow up and be relentlessly logical and analytical just like him. I doubt anyone will have much luck trying to turn a scientist's attention away from the tangible; our brains simply aren't wired to care about metaphysical matters.

I can't say I disagree with Dr. Monod. Chance *does* have a huge effect on the physical world. Everyone sees how meteorologists incorporate the role of chance into their work ("Today will be partially cloudy, with a 60% chance of snow or sleet.") The role of chance in other sciences may not be as visible, but it plays a huge role in everything we do. A radioactive half-life, for example, is the empirically determined time it takes for half of the atoms of a given radioisotope to undergo radioactive decay. Or, to put it another way, any specific atom of that isotope has a 50% chance of undergoing decay during a half-life. Specific decay events are random and unpredictable, yet we can use that random process to precisely measure various quantities. In fact, I have seen no method of quantitation that is as sensitive or precise as radioactive methods. That is just one example; the role of chance is ubiquitous in biology and, indeed, in our everyday lives.

I will take a moment here to point out that, unlike any of the philosophers mentioned in these discussions so far, Jacques Monod, along with his colleague Francois Jacob, has had a lasting influence in the fields of molecular and micro- biology. Their elegant work unveiling the function of the lac operon is discussed in many classes, and parts of the lac operon are used in many experimental projects. I've used it myself.

And he seems to know the downside of this sort of thing:

"… When faced with questions that they really don’t know how to answer — like “How does a single cell turn into a mouse?” or “How did the structure and activity of Beethoven’s brain result in Opus 131?” — the only thing that natural scientists know how to do is turn them into other questions that they do know how to answer. That is, scientists do what they already know how to do."

That isn't quite accurate. We address such questions by breaking them down into questions that we can answer. For example, we know that when a lethal dose of a certain poison is administered, death occurs within a few days or weeks. We don't know how. My entire graduate school career was spent looking for a stepping stone between the very well characterized initial events that occur upon exposure and the later event (death). I did not find that stepping stone, but I found hints of what it might look like. Even if I had found and characterized it, that only would have meant that someone else would be looking for the next stepping stone. The fact that the large questions in science must always be broken down into small questions does not mean that the large questions are unanswerable. It's kind of like taking a road trip. You know where you want to go, but not how to get there. So you study some maps and determine that you must first take road A, then road B, then C, etc., and by driving along a series of roads, you reach your destination. Of course, science doesn't have road maps, and we make a lot of wrong turns along the way--but the stepwise progression towards the goal is similar.

191 posted on 05/06/2012 5:21:30 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
It's very simple: As an historical "science," it calls for things that are not directly testable. It calls for things that not only have never been directly observed, but which cannot be directly observed in principle.

I believe we've had this discussion before. It simply is not accurate to call sciences that depend mostly on observation "historical" sciences. Furthermore, the science of evolution has many components that *are* directly testable, and many evolutionary biologists spend their careers designing and performing hypothesis-driven experiments.

As for any supposition that evolution "calls for" unobserved and unobservable things, that simply is not true. You have previously expressed frustration that scientists only care about that which is tangible, observable, measurable--but here you are now, accusing us of incorporating nonexistent components into the theory of evolution! Your previous characterization of us as being too focused on the physical world is essentially correct--please keep that in mind the next time you are tempted to accuse us (or to repeat someone else's accusation) of engaging in philosophical flights of fancy vis-à-vis evolution.

Also, if you want to talk about the supposed "unobserved and unobservable" aspects of the theory of evolution, please be specific about what they are.

[Of course, I am here speaking of the macroevolution component of the doctrine.]

What, exactly, is "macroevolution"? I'm familiar with the term as coined by literal creationists, but I don't think it has a definite scientific meaning. I suppose the distinction would be the time scale...

In that very sense, it is no different than the offerings of any religious sect.

Religion concerns itself with the unseeable and unprovable; it is very different from science. Each has its place, and scientists never confuse the two.

192 posted on 05/06/2012 5:52:11 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Please explain how a solute containing Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and hydrogen will spontaneously large quantities of organic molecules according to physical laws. Since all of science of cosmogony indisputably proves the universe began, and came to be from nothing, please tell us, in accordance to physical laws how hyrogen, oxygen, and carbon came to be. I would also ask if you would clarify for us if the early earth contained O2. If O2 is produced for the most part by photosynthesis how did O2 come to develope 20% of the earths atmosphere. Also regarding the early earth, please explain how O2 molecules could evade the profound effects of ultraviolet radiation on those O2 molecules.

This would be a lot easier to answer if you had some knowledge of chemistry.

Chemicals like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc., react spontaneously to form molecules because it is their nature to do so, just like it is the nature of magnets to seek physical contact when placed a short distance from each other. Each carbon atom can form covalent bonds with up to four other atoms. Each nitrogen atom can form up to three bonds with other atoms. Each oxygen can form up to two bonds, and hydrogen only forms one bond. As long as energy is present in the system (in other words, the mixture is warm enough), those bonds will form--it is unavoidable. And since they form randomly, a variety of organic molecules results.

As for how the oxygen and carbon came to be, they were produced from the fusion/other nuclear processes of hydrogen atoms inside stars. As to where the hydrogen came from--well, I believe that is a topic of discussion among physicists, who will tell you that everything came to be in the big bang, but don't really have details (or, at least, an explanation of how all this matter came into existence from nothing during the big bang). I can't answer that, and I don't spend time worrying about it.

Next, the early earth did NOT contain free O2 and early organisms did not respire the way all eukaryotes and many prokaryotes do now. All of the O2 currently in the atmosphere is there because of biological activity.

So many questions. Are you really meaning to say that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) consists of 4 letters.. A,T,C, and G. Or did you mean those letters represent nucleotides. And if so, please tell us how chemical nucleotides convey this 'tangible information'. Would it be more accurate to express this 'tangible information' as the physical expression of information contained in the genetic code. If you agree with that expression, then how did chemicals 'tell' messenger RNA to move to ribosomes and produce a protein. Information -> Nucleic acid -> mRNA ->ribosome ->expression of information. Now, what is the physical makeup of information.

Of course, the letters represent nucleotides. Within the scope of this discussion, and, indeed, within the scope of many scientific discussions, the pertinent information about those nucleotides is conveyed by referring to them as letters.

Now, when I speak of those chemical molecules carrying tangible information, I am being absolutely literal. Every atom, every molecule formed from atoms, has a unique shape. Carbon, for instance, is a tetrahedron. Molecules have more complex shapes than atoms. When a messenger RNA molecule is threaded through a ribosome, a single word (or "codon" in scientific speech) is placed in a specific position on the ribosome. A transfer RNA with an amino acid attached sees that word. If its word ("anticodon") is the exact opposite of the word at that position on the message on the ribosome, it fits that word just like a key fits a lock. The entire process is very physical. Here is a video that shows the process of protein synthesis on a ribosome. Although it's only representing the nucleotides as letters, the actual nucleotides do have specific shapes that only attach to other nucleotides with complementary shapes. A can only attach to U, and C only to G.

193 posted on 05/06/2012 7:26:29 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Would it be more accurate to express this 'tangible information' as the physical expression of information contained in the genetic code.

No. The DNA or RNA sequence is the information; they don't "contain" it.
194 posted on 05/06/2012 7:38:39 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
This would be a lot easier to answer if you had some knowledge of chemistry.

Now that you have the obligatory insult laid at my feet....you may presume that I have some knowledge in the area of chemistry. But you may also assume I am ignorant in many areas...of that I plead guilty.

We will bypass the fundamentals on covalent bonds, ionic bonds, electrovalent bonding, and nucleosynthesis. Presume I have a working knowledge there.

Molecular oxygen and carbon you account for via nucleosysthesis. Then you hand off the ball to the physists as to the origin of Hydrogen, helium (not mentioned) and subatomic particles which must have existed very early on in that event which you referenced as the Big bang. The fundamental question which I originally asked was,....As we know, and you affirm an origin to the universe (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc), and given that science does not deny, yes, it affirms that the universe came to be from nothing, (the eternity of the universe has thoroughly been scientifically dismissed-(see Borde, Guth, Vilkin) please account for the Cause of the big bang. Everything which comes to be has a cause....the universe came to be....therefore the universe had a Cause. (Please, before you go into the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Copenhagen Model, the above referenced authority has disposed of it). This was my question to you.

Next, the early earth did NOT contain free O2 and early organisms did not respire the way all eukaryotes and many prokaryotes do now. All of the O2 currently in the atmosphere is there because of biological activity.

Therefore you say these early organisms were anaerobes. I will assume you will agree with this. Do anaerobes give off elemental O2 as a byproduct of their physiological process (For now I will not ask you where and how the enzyme process survived an atmosphere in which was highly reduced.) So how did they respire? BUT, before you answer that question how did this 'primitive life' come to be?

Now, when I speak of those chemical molecules carrying tangible information, I am being absolutely literal.

Tanglible...ok. I understand that word. Now INFORMATION....we need to look at that word. That is an interesting word. Is it a 'piece of knowledge', as Webster indicates or, as Websters also indicates, is it 'the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects'? By this last definition it indicates a string of characters, specifically which indicate a particular outcome or performs a communication function. So DNA contains particular sequences to a specific effect. What humans recognize as 'information' always originates from mind or consciousness when applied to our technology. The information in the books of Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Shakespeare originated in the minds of those men. In nature the only place we find 'information' is in our biology, indeed in the cells of every living organism. So my question is...."How did this information arise?" Who or what wrote this book of life? It seeems to me that DNA is the medium which holds the information, not the the information itself. DNA is like a CD. It is not the music recorded by the Os and 1s sequenced in the CD. Who wrote the song? What wrote the song? As you know you can go into the lab and extract the molecule DNA (or pieces of it) put it in any medium which you desire, and you will not produce an organism. There is all the information you need to produce an organism, but there is no execution of production.

Thank you for the link to the video.

195 posted on 05/06/2012 1:21:47 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

What is Information? See my last post to exDemMom. Bill Gates stated that DNA is very much like a Computer Program, but much, much more advanced than any software ever created. So, who created the software of which you speak, DNA?` Who or what designed that program? DNA contains the building instructions for many cellular machines found inside the cell. But, as Bernd-Olaf Kuppers explains, “The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.”


196 posted on 05/06/2012 1:33:15 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Would the difference between a mouse and a rat be a “micro” change or a “macro” change?

It's obviously a macro change. Rats are way bigger and meaner than mice; anyone can see that. If rats were only slightly bigger and meaner, then it would have been a micro change. ;-)

197 posted on 05/08/2012 4:07:46 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
And in my post #143, I pointed out that it was in your post #137 that your qualifier signaled a “walking back” of a prior categorical assertion.

From my post #137: As a scientific methodology, creationism *is* useless.

From your post #143: To assert what you are saying is to assert that Christianity is useless.

It appears that I had the qualifier there all along. It was also apparent from allmendream's previous post that he was specifically talking about creationism in that same context, even though he didn't place the qualifier in the same sentence.

Don’t be insulting. The reason you would Google “Passover recipes” is because of your guests’ religious beliefs. Now you are proposing that a Torah (or a bible) must be read as though it were a recipe book?

I had specifically said creationism is useless for COOKING, whereupon you tried to inflate that statement to claim that I was talking about Jewish dietary laws. Even if I were (which I was not), I can still say that creationism is useless as a guide to those, as well. The Jewish dietary laws are set out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not in Genesis.

Yeah, and witness the number that are used by religions. Both Judeo-Christian and others. Likewise the presence of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the concert repertoire. Your narrative seems to prove in your mind that the presence of other influences obviates the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is not surprising.

You're still missing the point. The use of a tool for good or evil does not make the tool itself good or evil. Remember the old saying, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"? You seem to be trying to convince me that things are good or evil, which is not a premise I accept.

You don’t care to discuss philosophy except when you care to discuss philosophy. Don’t start a brawl and then announce you’re leaving the party. If you don’t care to discuss philosophy . . . don’t discuss philosophy.

*I* haven't brought up philosophy. In every case in which it has been discussed, it was brought up by someone else. My *only* discussion of it has been to say that I avoid it.

So, there is ethics in Science? Or is that only when it’s convenient for there to be ethics in Science?

See above. Science is a methodology, a tool, and as such, has no intrinsic ethics. Just as with the use of any other tool, the ethics are contained within the practioner. Remember, guns don't kill people--people kill people.

The “evolving” ethics just weren’t advanced enough? A fuller discussion of the “lapse” somehow makes it all OK?

Does the fact that the field of applying ethics to research is still evolving somehow make it invalid? Do we expect fields of human knowledge to spring forth, fully developed and in their final form, in order for them to be valid? The question of how to conduct research ethically and humanely is still a huge topic of discussion--in PubMed, there are about 160,000 articles on "ethics" alone. The fact that we're still trying to come up with answers doesn't invalidate the effort.

So you don’t endorse those who look to divorce Science from cultural values (as do some)?

Again, see above. Cultural values may be brought to the practice of science, but science is not a driver of cultural values. Guns, people, kill, etc.

By “Christians in general” do you include the Creationist beliefs shared by all Judeo-Christians? I have to hand it to you. You’ve maintained plausible deniability better than do most.

By saying "Christians in general", I am expressing the fact that those who believe that the Genesis story is a literal accounting of events that happened ~6,000 years ago are only a subset of Christians, and are not reflective of all Christians. You can certainly believe that God created the universe without doggedly holding to a literal YEC belief that is directly contradicted by physical evidence.

198 posted on 05/08/2012 5:00:59 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
It appears that I had the qualifier there all along

Old naval tactic: when outgunned make much smoke. My post #143 pointed out that your post #137 was the first introduction of your qualifier “scientific methodology.” You haven’t introduced a counter argument, just smoke. Great billowing clouds.

It was also apparent from allmendream's previous post that he was specifically talking about creationism in that same context

The assertion does not prove the fact. Repeating the assertion does not change the status of the fact. allmendream’s assertion has been categorical (and uncompromising). Great billowing clouds.

I had specifically said creationism is useless for COOKING

I hear just fine, thank you, but I’ll take your remark as an instance of emphasis, not of shouting. Your assertion was in response to my observation that passages in the Torah were important to an observant Jew for food preparation (COOKING). Your response was simply to restate your original assertion. Great billowing clouds.

*I* haven't brought up philosophy.

“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.”
Who recently quoted the above? You did (in case you’re gagging on the answer). Not a philosophical observation? Something you found in a science textbook? A peer-reviewed article perhaps? An ancient script found at an archeological site? Or, is it “Existential nonsense”? “Thought meandering”? Then why did you bother to mention it? It couldn’t be because the quote had any value.

I won’t bother with the balance of your post. It’s simply more of the same: an insult and a series of sidetracks down which you hope to send me galloping.

Great billowing clouds.

Except one thing:
I asked you if ethics are to be found in Science. You responded, “Science is a methodology, a tool, and as such, has no intrinsic ethics. Just as with the use of any other tool, the ethics are contained within the practioner.

OK, so Science has no ethics. You’re on record.

You can certainly believe that God created the universe without doggedly holding to a literal YEC belief

Then address yourself to YECs and stop aiding and abetting in the slandering of a whole people.

Remember, guns don't kill people--people kill people.

Is that a philosophical remark? Thought meandering? Existential nonsense?

199 posted on 05/08/2012 1:53:05 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
Old naval tactic: when outgunned make much smoke. My post #143 pointed out that your post #137 was the first introduction of your qualifier “scientific methodology.” You haven’t introduced a counter argument, just smoke. Great billowing clouds.

Yes, post #137 *was* the first time I used the qualifier "scientific methodology"--right in the same sentence where I first used the term "creationism is useless". Seeing as how the first time I used either term occurred in the same sentence, you have no basis on which to say I ever made a blanket statement. So quit putting words in my mouth, or claiming that I said things I did not say.

The assertion does not prove the fact. Repeating the assertion does not change the status of the fact. allmendream’s assertion has been categorical (and uncompromising). Great billowing clouds.

In other words, you did not read allmendream's post in its entirety, and you are committing the same dishonest tactic that we can see used among the charlatans selling young earth creationism: using quotes out of context to try to "prove" scientists mean something different than what they actually said.

Your assertion was in response to my observation that passages in the Torah were important to an observant Jew for food preparation (COOKING). Your response was simply to restate your original assertion.

I have to repeat it, since you apparently did not (and still don't) understand the context. Taking things out of context is no different than putting words into people's mouths. The creation story of Genesis =/= the Torah.

OK, so Science has no ethics. You’re on record.

Well... it *almost* seems like we're getting somewhere. Scientists have ethics, science doesn't.

“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.”

Who recently quoted the above? You did (in case you’re gagging on the answer). Not a philosophical observation?

No, that's not philosophy, and neither is the statement "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Those are sayings--short statements illustrating pieces of wisdom, formulated from people's empirical observations of human behavior. They have nothing in common with non-empirical philosophical questions such as, "If all the contents of awareness are ideas, how can we know that anything exists apart from ideas?" That, according to Wikipedia, was the basis of Descartes' existentialist nonsensical ramblings. GIGO, as they say.

Then address yourself to YECs and stop aiding and abetting in the slandering of a whole people.

I've been addressing YECism all along, and have taken care to indicate that. You *chose* to interpret my criticism of YECism as an indictment of all Christians, which it is not.

200 posted on 05/09/2012 4:06:21 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson